Pages

Friday, 15 July 2016

Whether husband can refuse to pay maintenance to wife on ground that she must go to work?

There is no evidence to establish that the 1st respondent isemployed. Even then, it is immaterial. Because under Hindu Law an husband should maintain his wife. A Hindu husband will not say that his wife must goto work and get herself maintained. No where an Hindu husband, whilemarrying a lady will say, I will marry you provided you must work and earnand feed herself. It would be against Hindu philosophy. So this is oneaspect of the matter.BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.06.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Crl.R.C.(MD)No.34 of 2016 T.Kanagavelrajan ... PetitionerVs.1.K.Kaleeswari 2.K.Priyadarshini ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 ofCr.P.C., against the order dated 05.11.2015 passed in maintenance case inM.C.No.149 of2014 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.

The revision petitioner challenges grant of maintenance at the rate ofRs.5,000/- per month to his wife / R1 and to his daughter / R2. 2.The revision petitioner is a Postman. He belongs to Theni. Hemarried a girl belonging to Madurai. They were gifted with the 2ndrespondent, who is 2 years old. But fate made this spouses to live apart dueto difference of opinion. 3.The revision petitioner is a Central Government employee. He wasasked to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to each respondent. 4.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, thePostman is a poorman. He is taking care of a very big family, consisting ofaged old mother, widowed sister, their children. What he was getting afterdeduction, is only Rs.20,499/-. The 1st respondent is employed in a shop inMadurai. She is also earning. 5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents wouldsubmit that there is no evidence that the wife is earning. The 2ndrespondent is a 2 years old kid. It is not that their mother is being takencare of by the revision petitioner alone. He himself admitted in evidencethat his other brother also contributes for the maintenance of their mother.Therefore, the maintenance granted by the Trial Court cannot be faulted. 6.I have considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned orderand also the materials on record. 7.There is no evidence to establish that the 1st respondent isemployed. Even then, it is immaterial. Because under Hindu Law an husband should maintain his wife. A Hindu husband will not say that his wife must goto work and get herself maintained. No where an Hindu husband, whilemarrying a lady will say, I will marry you provided you must work and earnand feed herself. It would be against Hindu philosophy. So this is oneaspect of the matter. 8.The revision petitioner is a Central Government employee. Even afterdeductions, from his salary is Rs.23,000/- he is receiving more thanRs.20,000/-. Further, there is upward annual revision of salary of every 6months D.A. increases. Central Government / State Government employees salary always increases. 9.It is pertinent to note that not only the revision petitioner aloneis the only son of his mother, equally the other brother also has to takecare of his mother and he is also taking care of her. 10.Now in Madurai a grown up woman and a child to meet their expenses towards a roof, food, cloth and extra nourishment for the child Rs.5,000/-per month will not be a fabulous amount. It would be hand to mouth. Thisamount is minimum required. This amount would contribute minimum to pull thedays. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the amount ordered cannotbe said to be excessive. 11.In the circumstances, this revision fails and it is dismissed.ToThe Family Court, Madurai..